The fallout from the Mattel win continues – MGA filed a motion under seal for a stay pending appeal; Mattel filed a motion asking for the appointment of a receiver:
Mattel makes this Application on the grounds that MGA has filed, both in this Court and in the Ninth Circuit, stay applications based on MGA’s claims of imminent financial insolvency, including for reasons that MGA admits are unrelated to the prospect of injunctive relief. Regardless of whether MGA’s assertions are credited, MGA’s repeated, conflicting assertions about its financial condition raise serious doubts about its ability to (a) pay the Phase 1 trial damages award and any award rendered in Phase 2 trial to Mattel and (b) maintain and preserve the Bratz intellectual property that the jury and this Court determined are Mattel’s. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that MGA and Larian have engaged in questionable business arrangements and failed to disclose to the Court and Mattel significant financial information, including the identity of the ultimate source of the funding that MGA has been receiving since Phase 1B from a series of off-shore, non-operating entities. A receiver should be appointed, and MGA and Larian should be ordered to pay the costs and fees associated with the receiver. Alternatively, Mattel seeks leave to take expedited discovery into this subject matter.
The Court didn’t stay for the duration of the appeal but did stay for year, and appointed a forensic auditor:
Notwithstanding any previous Order of the Court, The December 3, 2008, Order Granting Mattel Inc.’s Motion for Permanent Injunction (docket #4439) shall remain STAYED, ineffective and non-final, until further Order of the Court. Specifically, retailers and distributors will be permitted to purchase the Spring and Fall 2009 lines of Bratz and Bratz-related products from MGA and MGA licensees, up to and including December 31, 2009.
Motion for receiver here; Order below:
© 2009 Pamela Chestek